Chapter 04. Personality Characteristics or Traits of Leaders

20



Chapter Four



The strength of the genetic approach is that it explains the origins of leadership from the beginnings of time. If you were a leader, it was because your

parents were leaders and you inherited the leadership ability from your parents and had a “right” to that position. Ultimately, the genetic theory was superseded because the world changed as a result of World War I and the rise of

an industrial leadership in the 18th and 19th centuries as men and women of

humble origins who were not of the “royal” lineage rose to positions of

power, influence, and leadership by growing industrial giants, some of which

are still in existence today. Genetic theory could not explain how and why

these “non-royal” persons rose to positions of leadership and power.

In contrast to genetic theory, the trait theory essentially says that leaders are

born with certain traits or characteristics that make them leaders. Importantly,

the traits need not come from royalty but can come from non-royal parents.

What we call the trait theory is really a collective grouping of theories that attempt to explain or describe leadership through a series of similar personality

characteristics or traits. This theory attempts to identify specific physical,

mental and personality characteristics associated with leadership success and

relates those traits to certain success criteria.

According to trait theory, individuals who possess certain identifiable traits

would be natural born leaders, and the trait theory would appear to be a clear

and concise view of the origins and nature of leadership. Trait theory assumes

a finite number of individual traits of effective leadership can be identified

and measured by studying proven leaders. Thus, there are probably as many

different traits as there are leaders studied. Notwithstanding this assumption,

trait theory and the examination of traits are worthy of study simply because

it is one attempt to predict leadership effectiveness from physical, sociological and psychological characteristics of leaders.



THE SEARCH FOR TRAITS

The search for traits has led to numerous studies that considered such factors

as height, weight, intelligence and personality. The traits typically associated

with the trait theory are intelligence, personality, communicative skills, physical characteristics and supervisory ability. For example, Stogdill found that

leaders were indeed more intelligent than followers.2 Other studies suggest

that personality traits such as alertness, originality, personal integrity, and

self-confidence can be associated with effective leadership.

Ghiselli reported several other personality traits that are associated with

one’s position in an organization, such as the ability to initiate action independently. This ability was directly related to the individual’s position in the



Personality Characteristics or Traits of Leaders

Table 4.1.



21



Leadership Traits



Intelligence



Personality



Abilities



Judgment

Decisiveness

Knowledge

Fluency of speech



Adaptability

Alertness

Creativity

Personal Integrity

Self-confidence

Emotional balance and control

Independence (nonconformity)



Ability to enlist cooperation

Co-cooperativeness

Popularity and prestige

Sociability

Social participation

Tact, diplomacy



Source: Data from David C. Kozak, “Leadership,” Gannon University Magazine, Winter 1998, 4.



organization: the higher the person’s position in the organization, the more

important this trait became. Ghiselli also found that self-assurance was related to hierarchical positions in the organization: those persons who exhibited individuality were the most effective leaders.3 Table 4.1 presents a summary of personality and character traits associated with leadership

effectiveness.

Another perspective of traits pertains to leadership qualities. Almost every

author considered in this book presents material relative to the meaning of

leadership as it applies to different people in different situations and in different environments. In effect, leadership means different things to different

people, and different people provide a different emphasis. However, data in

table 4.2 summarize most authorities’ perceptions of leadership.

Kirkpatrick and Locke found evidence to support the idea that effective

leaders are different from other people.4 Their review of the literature suggests that drive, motivation, ambition, honesty, integrity, and self-confidence

are key leadership traits, which they call the “right stuff” concept: Leaders do

Table 4.2.



Perceptions of Leadership



Inspirational charisma

Intelligence

Learning / renewal

World-mindedness / sense of history

Coalition building

Motivation / morale building

Stamina, energy, tenacity, courage

Character / integrity / honesty / morality

Risk-taking /entrepreneurship

Ability to persuade

Understanding of power



Sense of direction

Concentration on achieving goals and results

Flexibility

A sense of humor

A scheme of priorities

Competence and credibility

Transformational consequences

Reasonableness



Source: Adapted from William E. Rosenbach and Robert L. Taylor. Contemporary Issues in Leadership, 3rd

ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993), cited by David C. Kozak, “Leadership,” Gannon University

Magazine, Winter 1998, 5.



22

Table 4.3.



Chapter Four

Leadership Traits Deemed Essential for Effectiveness or Success



1. Knowing One’s Self: physical and personality skills.

2. Managing Stress: personal health and fitness.

3. Group Dynamics: learning styles, understanding and managing, excessive group

dynamics.

4. Leadership: functions and styles.

5. Thinking: critical and creative.

6. Effective Communication: speaking, listening, writing.

7. Negotiations: compromise, bargaining, advocacy to include media and legislative

relations.

8. Decision Making: environment, process and behavior.

9. Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis and Computers: executive level appreciation

for utility, strengths, weaknesses, and limitations.

10. Values: ethics and judgment.

Source: Adapted from David C. Kozak, “Leadership,” Gannon University Magazine, Winter 1998, 6.



not have to be great intellects to succeed, but the study suggests that they do

need to have the “right stuff” or traits to have a good chance to be effective.

The leaders they studied had the “right stuff” or the traits identified above.

Moreover, they found that the “right stuff” was present in leaders of any age,

religion, size, gender, or race.

Finally, some high-level leaders have their own answers to the question of

what traits are necessary for leadership survival and success today. Kozak identifies three traits necessary for effective leadership:5 global literacy; a welcoming view of new technology where leaders are the masters not the servants; and

three hundred sixty degree communication skills for dealing with supervisors,

subordinates, peers, and customers. Table 4.3 presents several additional leadership traits Kozak deems essential to determine effectiveness or success.



DEVELOPING LEADERSHIP SKILLS

The trait theory of leadership informs us some specific and very similar personality traits can indeed be found in many successful leaders. However, the

exact traits found in one individual leader are not necessarily found in other

leaders. What makes leaders different from others is still an unknown. And

there continues to be controversy as to whether these leadership traits can be

taught or are inborn in leaders. Those in academia would argue that leadership can indeed be taught. Those not connected with academia are not so sure,

and there are numerous examples in both categories. Some of the most influential leaders have never had a leadership course, yet they are recognized as

“great leaders.” Others were recipients of leadership training from a number



Personality Characteristics or Traits of Leaders



23



of sources, yet are not recognized as great leaders. So where does this leave

us? Certainly, the traits recognized by most researchers are not found in some

catalogue or internet shopping website where one can go and order intelligence, ability, skills, or any of the personality traits noted in this chapter.

Instead, Kozak finds that with a combination of academic preparation and

experimental activities, each of us have the opportunity to fashion our own

appropriate leadership approaches.6 He presents as an argument that there are

many ways an individual can pursue leadership. To reinforce that concept, he

relates that some practitioners of leadership embark on self-improvement programs by reading a variety of books or taking seminars on the subject in a

lifelong learning effort. Others engage in a fairly aggressive reading program

of the “great books of leadership,” approaching the literature with the devotion of physicians to the New England Journal of Medicine, or attorneys to recent legal case precedents. Another avenue to leadership development is to

join a community-based leadership development program that networks and

bonds together emerging community leaders. A final approach is to gather

and use a variety of helpful and useful quotes, methods, and procedures from

well-known and visionary leaders.



CRITICISMS OF TRAIT THEORY

How does trait theory explain many recognizable leaders who were not

“born” from generations of leaders? Maybe it’s the situation in which a person finds his or herself that compels a person to become a leader. Because

traits denoting leadership in one study are not necessarily found in other

studies, the sheer number of possible leadership traits further complicates the

situation.

According to Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly, some studies conclude that

some traits do indeed differentiate effective from ineffective leaders, but research findings are still contradictory for a number of possible reasons.7 First,

the list of potentially important traits is endless. Every year, new traits, such

as the sign under which a person is born, handwriting styles, and order of

birth, are added to personality, physical characteristics, and intelligence. By

continually adding on additional and different traits, confusion results among

those interested in identifying true leadership traits. Second, trait test scores

are not consistently predictive of leader effectiveness. Leadership traits do not

operate singly to influence followers but act in combination. This interaction

influences the leader-follower relationship. Third, patterns of effective behavior depend largely on the situation: leadership behavior that is effective in

a bank may be ineffective in a laboratory or in a military situation. Finally,



24



Chapter Four



the trait approach fails to provide insight into what the effective leader does

on the job.

Other criticisms of the Trait Theory of Leadership include these issues:8 The

theory does not consider the possibility that leadership activity can influence a

leaders’s traits; the theory assumes the subjects classified as leaders possess

greater leadership characteristics than subjects classified as followers; the theory

neglects the question of what degree of a particular trait is optimal for effective

leadership; the theory ignores the relative importance of different traits in determining leadership effectiveness; and finally, the theory ignores the needs of followers as an important factor in leadership. Thus, observations are needed that

describe the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders.



STRENGTHS OF TRAIT THEORY

Despite these criticisms of train theory, Stogdill concisely captures the value

of the trait approach:9

The view that leadership is entirely situational in origin and that no personal

characteristics are predictive of leadership . . . seems to overemphasize the situational and underemphasize the personal nature of leadership.



Consistent with this view of trait theory, Kozak offers several criteria of

leadership relative to the personal nature of leadership:10

• Leadership requires vision, contagious enthusiasm and self-confidence,

empowerment, action enabling of others, getting things done, making

things happen.

• People skills—not position—make for leadership.

• Excellence, quality, performance and productivity are the results of leadership.

• Participatory, collegial, consultative decision structures are most productive.

• Success in making things happen or come true requires objectives and

goals, strategies, leadership, and resources.



IDENTIFYING LEADERS

After many years of study and research on leadership traits, there still is not

a unified position of the characteristics necessary to predict leadership abilities. How then do we identify leaders? Are there some unique characteristics

that all leaders possess?



Personality Characteristics or Traits of Leaders



25



George and Jones identify eight characteristics or personal traits that help

to identify leaders:11

• Intelligence—helps a leader solve complex problems.

• Task-relevant knowledge—ensures that a leader knows what has to be

done, how is should be done and what resources are required for a group

organization to achieve its goals.

• Dominance—an individual’s need to exert influence and control over others helps a leader channel follower’s efforts and abilities toward achieving

group and organizational goals.

• Self-confidence—helps a leader influence followers and motivates them to

persevere in the face of obstacles or difficulties.

• Energy—helps a leader deal with the many demands they face on a day to

day basis.

• Tolerance for stress—helps a leader deal with the uncertainty inherent in

any leadership role.

• Integrity and honesty—help to ensure a leader behaves ethically and is worthy of followers’ trust and confidence.

• Emotional maturity—helps to ensure a leader is not overly self-centered,

can control their feelings, and can accept criticism.



SUMMARY

In summary, the body of research indicates that certain personality traits can

describe leaders and can be distinguishing traits that separate leaders from

others. Three types of characteristics are commonly found in leaders include

the following:

• Abilities and skills that enable them to do their job.

These abilities stem from several characteristics: intelligence; interpersonal

skills such as persuasiveness; tact and diplomacy; and knowledge.12 The studies

reviewed found that intelligence traits were distinguishing characteristics of

leaders and that leaders are more intelligent than followers. The studies also

found that leaders needed to have a great deal of persuasiveness, tact, diplomacy

and knowledge about the task at hand. Although these traits vary from situation

to situation, these traits were needed to accomplish the work.

• Personality Traits.



26



Chapter Four



Ghiselli found that personality traits such as alertness, energy level, tolerance for stress, emotional maturity, originality, personal integrity, and selfconfidence are associated with effective leadership.Ghiselli also found that

the higher an individual’s position in an organization, the more important

these traits became. More recent reviews and studies concluded that motivation, tenacity, initiative, and self-assurance could be added to the list of personality traits found in leaders.13

• Motivation.

By motivation, we are referring here to what motivates leaders themselves.

Why do they do what they do? Almost all studies agree that leaders seem to

exhibit a high need for power but act on that need in socially acceptable ways.

It appears that leaders know that to get tasks accomplished they must have the

constructive power to bring together the resources needed to get the job done.

Power then seems to be a driving force. Another motivating force seems to be

the drive for achievement. In several studies, most leaders demonstrated a

need to achieve particularly in their field of endeavor and were motivated by

getting a task completed.14

The key to remember is that most studies agree that leaders are different

from other people. Leaders have generally demonstrated certain personality

traits and motivating forces to a higher degree than followers seem to exhibit.

How and why this occurs is exactly what makes the study of leadership so exciting and always relevant to whatever period in history the studies take place.

It also leads us to consider other theories and principles of leadership.



NOTES

1. Abraham Zaleznik, “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” in Managing

People and Organizations, ed. John J. Gabarro (Boston: Harvard Business School

Publications, 1992), 85–100.

2. Ralph, M. Stogdill, “Historical Trends in Leadership Theory and Research,”

Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn 1974): 4.

3. Edwin E. Ghiselli, “The Validity of Management Traits in Relation to Occupational Levels,” Personnel Psychology (Summer 1963): 109–13.

4. Kirkpatrick, “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” 48–60.

5. Kozak, “Leadership,” 3.

6. Kozak, “Leadership,” 5–6.

7. James L. Gibson, John M. Ivancevich, and James H. Donnelly Jr., Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes, 9th ed. (Boston: Irwin McGraw Hill, 1997),

274–75.



Personality Characteristics or Traits of Leaders



27



8. Gibson, Organizations, 8th ed., Lecture Resource Guide, ed. Kim A. Stewart,

Boston: Irwin, 1994), 77.

9. Ralph M. Stogdill, “Personal Factors Associated With Leadership,” Journal Of

Applied Psychology (January 1948): 72.

10. Kozak, “Leadership,” 5–6.

11. George, Understanding, 377.

12. Gibson, Organizations, 9th ed., 274.

13. Edwin E. Ghiselli, Explorations in Management Talent. Santa Monica, CA:

Goodyear, 1971; Edwin E. Ghiselli, “The Validity of Management Traits in Relation

to Occupational Level,” Personnel Psychology (Summer 1963): 109–13, cited by

Gibson, Organizations, 10th ed., 274.

14. Gibson, Organizations, 9th ed., 277.



Chapter Five



Personal Behavior Theories

of Leadership



Personal behavior theories of leadership date back to the late 1940s and set

forth the hypothesis that, rather than a person’s DNA or personality characteristics or traits, it is how a person acts in a particular situation that determines that person’s leadership effectiveness. Instead of searching for traits to

explain leadership and leader effectiveness, researchers turned to an examination of the behavior of leaders and the resulting effects on the performance

and satisfaction of their followers. Thus, personal behavior theories of leadership are based on the premise that leadership behavior can be determined

by studying what leaders do in relation to accomplishing tasks and maintaining the efforts of people performing the task. Going back to the forces that

motivate leaders discussed in chapter 4, leaders must accomplish a task and

they must do so through the efforts of those they lead.



THE RESEARCH BASES

The behavioral approaches to leadership came out of the human relations

movement in management theory, which focused on the individual and not

the task, and stressed that leadership can be studied and learned. The research

supporting behavioral theories of leadership was developed from two prominent studies: the job-centered and employee-centered leadership study led by

Rensis Likert at the University of Michigan in 1947; and the initiating structure and consideration study conducted by the Bureau of Educational Research at Ohio State University after World War II.1 Now, these were not the

only studies done in Behavioral Leadership but they were the first to lead researchers beyond the Trait Theory and into the next evolution.

28



Personal Behavior Theories of Leadership



29



Job-Centered and Employee-Centered Leadership

The purpose of the Likert/University of Michigan study was to discover the

principles and methods of effective leadership in a wide variety of organizations and industries: chemical; electronics; food; heavy machinery; insurance;

petroleum; public utilities; hospitals; banks; and government agencies. Data

were obtained from thousands of employees doing different tasks, ranging

from unskilled work to highly skilled research and development work. The

effectiveness criteria used in many of the studies included the following:2

1. Productivity per work hour, or other similar measures of the organization’s

success in achieving its production goals;

2. Job satisfaction of members of the organization;

3. Turnover, absenteeism, and grievance rates;

4. Costs;

5. Scrap loss; and

6. Employee and managerial motivation.

Through interviewing leaders and followers, researchers identified two

distinct styles of leadership, referred to as job-centered leadership and

employee-centered leadership:3

Likert suggested that a job-centered leader is a leader who closely supervises and directs the work of others. The leader focuses on completing the

task and uses close supervision so that subordinates perform their tasks using

specified procedures dictated by the leader or manager. This leader relies on

coercion, reward, and legitimate power to influence the behavior and performance of followers. Leaders exhibiting this leadership style seem to view

concern for people an important luxury which they cannot always afford. In

some respects, this is a perception that the job must be accomplished and people are expendable as long as the job gets done. There were many examples

of this style in industries in the 1940s and 1950s and in wartime military

operations. More recently, leaders of this stripe are commonly known as

“micro-managers.”

Likert also described an employee-centered leader as one who generally

supervises the work of others more loosely and permits them to work autonomously. The leader focuses on the people doing the work and delegates

decision making to followers, thus empowering them with the power and resources to complete the job. Leaders satisfy the needs of the people who perform the work by creating a supportive work environment. Employeecentered leaders concern themselves with followers’ personal advancement,

growth, and achievement. Such leaders emphasize individual and group